For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Read next

AI System Creates Multi-Scale Maps from Satellite Images with Geographic Accuracy
Mike Young -

Machine Learning Makes Algorithms Smarter While Keeping Backup Plans
Mike Young -

AI Critics Get Smarter: New Training Method Boosts Feedback Quality by 45%
Mike Young -

Study Shows Why AI Struggles to Learn Math from Correct Answers Alone
Mike Young -
Top comments (2)
That's a great question!
Even language designers make mistakes sometimes. Here's what I wrote about it a couple of years ago.
I was more concerned about it being protected but I found the thinking behind it here.
Thanks for the blog. That seems ok. It is indeed debatable why marker Interfaces do not expose the methods that should be related to them.
However, I see a counterpoint to your blog.
If clone() was not implemented in Object, we would have to implement it in our cloneable concrete classes and there will be no super.clone() to rely on.
Keeping that in mind, the design does not look that bad for the initial introduction of the method.
But what you suggest in your blog is definitely a better design. Specially now that it is possible to define "default" methods in interfaces, it could be better design to adapt it in newer versions.
What I'm sure about is that it was anyways good that it was implemented already for us and Object class was the only possible place to implement it at that point of time.